Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Young Pharmacists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Young Pharmacists[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This new journal has, as far as I could tell, never had an article cited. It also has zero secondary sources. Prodded by User:Crusio, then deprodded by User:Espresso Addict. Abductive (reasoning) 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two positive attributes for this journal is that it is peer reviewed and is indexed, even though it was first published only in 2009. However, the main drawback for notability is that it is new since being published only in 2009. Hence, this journal is not mentioned in other, secondary sources. And it may be too new for its articles to have been cited by other works. I will have to go with delete because it is too new to have established sufficient notability. Note: Volume 1, Issue 1, is Jan to Mar, 2009.----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in my original prod: not indexed in any major, selective databases. Doesn't meet WP:Notability (academic journals), doesn't meet WP:GNG. Most indexing services listed are trivial because they list everything (Google Scholar, DOAJ, and such) or are user-submitted (Index Copernicus, HINARI). The latter one is in a sense doubly trivial: HINARI is a service where publishers can choose to provide cheap (or even free) access to a particular journal to researchers in developing countries (so it's the publisher who decides about coverage). For an OA journal to be listed here is, if anything, even more trivial. Yet others are so obscure that I have trouble even finding them (SCOLOAR, for example). I note that many journals from the same publisher have the same deceptively impressive-looking list of indexation. Several of those were deprodded last night, but I have currently no time to bring them all to AfD. --Crusio (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Medknow is a respectable publisher, publishing many third world journals of fairly high quality. The more established ones are almost certainly notable. This is not yet well established. A new journal will not of course be immediately cited, but if published by a major publisher or a major society it can safely be assummed that it will be. The indexing statement is troublesome. It comes from the Medknow journal listing page, at [1]. The journal is in Ulrichs, but according to the Ulrichs listing it does not appear to be indexed in most of the services listed, only the Ebscohost aggregator services, which are not good indicators of notability. . Ulrichs has been known to be slightly out of date, so I checked with the services themselves: It is in Chemical Abstracts, according to their journal list [2], which I regard as good evidence that it is notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some further checking of the Medknow indexing listings. Them do not seem reliable. This journal for example is indexed neither in Medline, nor in PubMed, nor in PubMed Central, as search by title or ISSN. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacking secondary sources; InPharm doesn't appear notable either (based on English sources) despite 10 years of history. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.